All right, good evening everybody. Um, today is Monday, September 8th, 2025. It is 7:3 uh 2 and we're here at the Newbury Municipal Offices at 12 Kent Way and Biffield. This is the zoning board of appeals meeting. Uh, I'm Eric Spawn, the
chair. We have Christy Bri who is our executive assistant. We have Mario Kavali who's a member. We have Michelle Webler who's an associate member. Jack Kelly who's a member. Larry Murphy who's our liaison from the planning board. And
we have Larry Costa here from town council. So um with that Mario you want to Sure. All right. First up is uh Mark Ferrari uh Ringot Realy LLC represented by attorney Jeff Rolfs to Palm Island
Boulevard. The applicant is requesting a special permit finding for relief from sections 97-4D4 change of non-conforming use and 97-4D2 allowed use. B, single family dwelling dimensional regulations, 03 max floor
area ratio, and four, lot coverage of the Newberry zoning bylaws, and any other permanent relief as made required under the town of Newberry zoning bylaws to allow proposed project in order to redevelop the project, the raising of all existing structures, removal of existing pavements and equipment, and
the construction of one building with two residential town homes with parking underneath of the property located at two Boulevard Newbury Mass 01951 Cessors M U02 lot 132 the applicant's representative has submitted
supplemental information on the project now proposing one building with two residential dwellings with parking underneath the building continuing from 47 515 612 and 71725 applicants submitted supplemental information on the project as requested
at the last hearing good evening Evening. Good evening. Ready for me? Ready for you. Okay. Thank you. Uh for the record, Jeff Roloff's attorney for the applicant. I'm going to give you just a quick update as to where we've uh been since our last meeting in July. Uh and then I'm going
to go over the materials that we've recently submitted. So, uh in terms of an update, we our last hearing was on July 17th. Um shortly after that, we submitted the slides that we had presented and discussed that evening. So those are part of your record. On August
5th, we met with the conservation commission. Uh that meeting was quickly continued by the commission. They did not want to proceed with any substantive review. While this process was still pending, they really were pretty clear about wanting the ZBA to act first on this project. So they continued their
meeting to September 2nd. Um, we then submitted a supplemental package to this board on August 14th. And what we tried to do there was to submit exactly what the board asked for in July. Uh, that package, which I'm
going to go through in more detail, but that included a historic compilation related to the history of the restaurant here, a legal memo, proposed special conditions, and an outline of the sort of factors to be considered by the board to meet the applicable legal standard.
I'll get into those materials in a minute. On August 19th, we met uh Steve Sawyer, our civil engineer, met with James Serret, DPW director, uh to review the proposed public improvements. And his response generally, he's confirmed
this in an email, but um was he likes the improvements that we're proposing in the uh public land, the town land adjacent to the project site. Uh he requested one change. we had proposed a um sort of wooden boardwalk for the walkway. He really wants that to be
asphalt. So, uh that's subject to concom approval. Um but that's a detail that we've tweaked in the plans uh that have been submitted to you. Um on August 26, we met with the select board. uh that was initiated because as part of the
conservation commission process, we needed to get the town's consent to include the town the the proposed improvements on on the town land as part of that process. So the question to them was, will you consent to us um filing the notice of intent with the commission
to also cover those activities? And generally the select board was favorable. They supported the request to cons took they they approved their consent for the NOI process encompassing those activities and I wasn't there but
my understanding was that they also generally expressed support for the uh improvements that are currently proposed within that uh town owned land. I will just remind this board though that we still would need to get town approval um
separate from ZVA and concom approval to actually implement the work that's proposed on the town owned land. Yep. So I was present at the select board meeting. Okay. Great. Yeah. Confer what you just mentioned in short. Okay. Thank you. Um we then met with the
conservation commission on September 2nd. The scope of that meeting really was narrow. it. They wanted to take up the question of whether or not peer review was warranted um or still warranted given the revisions that we made to the project. They ultimately decided that uh peer review was not
warranted. Um they expressed general support for all the revisions that we've made to this project. They continued the hearing to September 16. Um so that's our ne that's our substantive review and discussion with them. And again, they did that because they want the ZBA to make a decision before they get into it.
Um on September 4th, uh Steve Sawyer submitted revised plans to you, very minor revisions. Um the the plans included an updated site plan, which you see here. You should have copies of that. Um and an updated landscape plan.
The only changes to this plan from what was submitted in July was uh there's a notation on there with respect to the walkway that it's going to either be boardwalk or or patuminous and asphalt depending on town and and town com
approval. Um they also split the patio that had been proposed on the south side of the building. It had been a 20x 20 ft patio, 400 square ft. They broke that up into two patios, one on each side of the building. 10 by 10. So, the overall
patio size actually was reduced, but it's two smaller patios instead of one. Um, and I think and then they added some vegetation along Sunset Drive. So, again, super minor changes. Basically, the site plan is otherwise the same as
what you've seen since July. Um, okay. Now, I'd like to go back to our August 14th submitt to this board. Um, and I just want to walk through each of those pieces, most of them really quickly because uh, and I'm happy to happy to get into as much detail as you
want. Um, but I want to remind you what was submitted since that was uh, over a month ago now or almost a month ago. Uh, so one component was this historical compilation thick bound volume documents.
Um, it's basically a compilation of historical references related to the restaurant use at this property. Um, I did most of this work myself. I got to say it was a really sort of interesting task. Super expensive for my client, unfortunately. But it was interesting to
go back to the early 1900s and the '50s and dig through the records to figure out what was going on out here. registry research, online research. It really was limited in scope to documents that were available online. I had to go to the
Newberry Port Public Library and Town Hall for some things, but mostly it was it was just the online stuff. Obviously, there's a ton more out there, but even with those limited resources, um the compilation that I pulled together demonstrates that this property has been used as a resident prior to the adoption
of zoning. Um, and it seems to have been used continuously since then. So, there's no indication at any point in time during the history of the operations at this property that the restaurant use was ever abandoned. Um, I also included in this package an
affidavit from Mark Friary, who's owned the property since 1999. Um and that included a number of um exhibits related to the litigation that we talked about in July. All the disputes and issues that had come up at that point um and and all aspects of
that I think also support the view that the restaurant use as it's been operated most recently 125 seat restaurant is a lawfully pre-existing restaurant use fully protected by the uh PIF provisions
grandfathering provisions. So that's the historical compilation. I'm not going to walk through it, but if you're interested in the history, it's definitely worth perusing. Can I make a comment here on this? So I would say job well done. This is what was expected. I think
although it was laborious to do and probably costly, it does save everybody the understanding where if someone from the outside wanted to challenge the one thing of use where your structure is your structure after 10 years, but the
use could be challenged um proves it out. So, okay, I'm I'm happily satisfied by the documentation and the effort that's presented in here. Okay. Thank you. I have one question. It was two properties that were biseected
towards the point of the intersection and then and then the the property lines changed at some point. Yeah, I think it was 1958. Um there was a survey plan in 1958 that
changed the original um subdivision in the early 1900s. So, when the when the these two lots at the intersection were first created, that's page number one of the compilation, there was a subdivision plan for the Plum Island Beach Company. You're probably familiar with that.
That's how all these lots were created originally in 1958, which is on page nine. Um, there was a subdivision plan done which actually changed the it changed the boundaries of those two lots. They
had been lots one and two. They changed them to lots A and B. And I thought it was interesting that on lot A, which is the current configuration of the parcel at issue, they also showed the restaurant. They showed the same building that was there at the time, and it totally matches up with the old
photographs that we have of that Thunderbird restaurant. So, yes. Thank you. Okay. Um the other document we submitted was a legal memorandum and we submitted this for two reasons. One was just to provide an overview of the legal standard here.
Um most of the findings legal standard that you usually apply here is um the basic finding of whether or not the proposed changes are substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and the
PY. So being more detrimental is okay, but if it's substantially more detrimental, then you lose your authority to approve these things. That's your basic uh that's your usual uh finding standard. In this case, where we're going under a different section of
the PIO provision, subsection 4, the change in the use has a less detrimental term associated with it. So the change in uses from one non-conforming use to another non-conforming use has to be in the direction of less detrimental. So I
discussed those two legal points and standards in my memo. I then went on to discuss the powers test and that was partly because Lisa me had raised it before we talked about it at the last meeting. Um it's a set of law that's out there related to these non-conforming
uses and and um structures. Um and I discussed it. She thought it was most relevant to um the question of what is the baseline for you're comparing the proposed use um what what are you comparing the proposed
use to is it the the most recent restaurant use 125 seat or is it some earlier version and the powers test kind of gets to that issue um so I discussed that in the memo the conclusion is uh there's nothing that in the law or in
the facts that we compiled that wouldgest suggests that the uh the baseline for you to compare the proposed use to is anything but the 125 seat restaurant that's been there for the last 20 plus years in in terms my wife could understand.
Yes. If the use had grown or expanded at some point beyond its allowed then we might think back to a different time and use that as the judgment point.
That's correct. So that gets exactly to the baseline issue. Yes. Yeah. And I I would think I mean I would think we're comparing it to what's there and what what was the current restaurant size, shape, and flavor of it.
Um I'm going to save sort of the juiciest one for last. So the other thing we submitted were proposed standards. uh sorry, proposed special conditions. So in all of your decisions, you've got your sort of classic um standard set of conditions and I've read through those. Um they all make sense.
In some situations, you've got special conditions that you attach because every case is a little bit different. So we had proposed two special conditions. I did send copies of this over to Lisa and Adam's office. Um and you should have copies of those. Sorry, I'm just looking
cuz I thought I had them in front of me and I don't. Give me one second. I do not but I do remember the two conditions. Thank you. Um so the what we were trying to do here
was to assure the board that our representation of doing certain making certain improvements and accepting certain conditions was um was valid and we wanted you to bind us to the representations we made with respect to these items. So the first special
condition related to the on-site and off-site public improvements. So, the language that I provided defines what those are and they include on-site um the offer to grant an easement to the town for a portion of the public walkway
along Sunset Drive um and also to implement construct all of the improvements that we've been discussing in the town owned uh right away adjacent to the properties approximately 3200 square ft of area. Um, and what we're
clarifying through the language we propose is that prior to implementing these, the applicant has to secure all other permits and approvals necessary for that work. We don't want you or anyone else to think that your approval gives us the authority we need to go do that stuff. There are other approvals we
need. Um, number two, clarifying that if during the process of getting those other approvals, if there are any material changes to the work, then we may have to come back to you. And I've defined sort of who makes that decisions, the building commission or DPW director. Ultimately, if there's any
question, we come to the board. We would present to you the changes from what you've seen through our process here. And if they're really significant, then we'd renotice a hearing and consider them at a hearing. And then finally, um, a commitment that or requirement in
this proposed condition that the improvements be completed prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for the first unit. So those tie into the public improvements and and bind us to what we've represented during the process. The second special condition relates to
the the deed restrictions that we proposed. Um, one of them included a prohibition of enclosing the open porches that we've presented in our designs. Uh, and two, uh, proh prohibiting construction of buildings or structures
other than garden structures within the two view corridors that are defined in our plans. And um the timing of those as laid out in my proposed conditions is that those restrictions have to be finalized and recorded at the registry
prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for the first townhouse unit at the property with the final language being subject to review and approval by the building commissioner and your town council. So those are the special conditions. Um I haven't heard we did provide those to town council. I haven't
heard from them but um those are in front of you for your consideration. Um the last document was something that Mr. Chairman you requested at the last meeting and I think it was really what we interpreted as
bring together all the factors that you think support a finding the less detrimental uh or substantially not substantially more detrimental findings that you have to make as part of this the finding that we're requesting. So, we've submitted an outline
that looks like this that we labeled as less detrimental and far considerations. And it really is organized in that sequence. It's all the factors that we think support the finding that we're looking for. And I'm going to walk through those quickly. And then
following that, we focus on the FAR because the FAR and the nonconformity with the FAR as related to this project is the one factor that cuts against the finding that we're asking for, but we think it's fully mitigated. So, with respect to the less detrimental factors,
I'm just going to walk through this document. I'm not going to read through it, but just highlight a few things. Number one, uh the pro the project would result in the removal of the restaurant use impacts. And those are obvious. We discussed some earlier. Commercial lighting, solid waste storage and
disposal, traffic and parking activities, deliveries and pickups, noise, frequent ongoing maintenance and management issues, ongoing birding to town services, inspectional, public safety services, etc. And then the water and sewage usage which is directly
related to the PID provisions. The second category is just an overview of how this project advances the intent and purposes of the PY provisions. So I went to the bylaw, you know, what are the purposes that the B the PIA provisions are seeking to accomplish and we
describe here how this project advances those purposes. Um number three, we highlight the reduced water and sewage use. Uh you'll remember that this property has the benefit of three sewer betterment uh uh
connections. The fees haven't been paid. Um the history on that is that commercial uses even though they might have used more water than three residential units, the maximum number any commercial use was allocated was
three units. But in this case, this property has been using more water and sewage than a three-unit facility. The proposed use is only for two residential units even though the property has the benefit of three uh three betterments. Number four, reduce number of parking
spaces. Historically, there have been spaces for 42 vehicles on site and at the adj on site plus the adjacent um parking spaces that were dedicated within the town lane for this restaurant. Reduce to the six units that
we're proposing. Um reduce number five, reduce parking visibility. The parking spaces associated with these two units will be under the building and out of sight. Improve public safety. Um, again, as compared to the restaurant parking which was in and out all around this
building, we're proposing one shared driveway with uh turnaround room within the property so vehicles can exit the property coming forward, not backing into traffic. Number seven, significant reduction in the imperous surfaces uh
and expansion of the the pvious open space areas. Currently 71% of the lot is covered by building structures, decks, and other and other imperous surfaces. Um the proposed project brings that 71%
down to 27%. Significant reduction. Um, and I'll highlight that's I mean that's more a conservation commission issue, but it also gets to if you read the PIAD purposes, I think two of the stated purposes are specifically related to addressing flooding impacts on the
island. Um, and that that goes a long ways to doing that as well as the reduced building coverage. So, the proposed project represents a reduction in building coverage from 35% to 24%. Um number nine, the compliant improved
stepbacks from adjacent properties. Uh this property has two residential properties adjacent to it. On the south side, the current setback is 34 1/2 ft. The proposal will reduce that to 30 ft, but that's still, as you know, three times the 10 ft that's required. The
proposed building will be um on the on the Plum Island Boulevard side of the property. The existing setback is 8 1/2 ft. And this project, the proposed building will be 23 feet off of that side setback. Uh the front setback will
be reduced from or will be expanded from 3.2 ft to 7.6 ft. But obviously more important than that, I think, is the fact that this project proposes significant improvements to that 3200 square ft in front of the property um
within the area between the travel lanes and the building itself. Number 11, uh, building height. We've really worked hard with Scott Brown, who's here this evening, if you have any questions, to minimize the height of this structure. As you know, the elevation is required by code. Um, only
a few inches of the proposed elevation um, from ground to the bottom of the first floor. Only a few inches of that is to accommodate um, the height of a person walking under there so we can park down there. Most of it is required by the building code. There's nothing we
can do about it. It's not a situation like those properties on the primary dune where they can actually build lower to the ground. By code, they could build closer to the sand, but they often don't want to, but they could by code because the um the base at flood elevation is
actually below the ground surface when you're out near the primary d. But here, the height's driven primarily by that. And then Scott's done everything he can um to keep the height of the building down. So in the end, what we're proposing is a a 30.8 foot building
height as it's calculated um under the bylaw. That's lower than most of the buildings that have been constructed out here most recently. The top height, which I and I think this is this goes to really the the sort of visual impact of this building because Scott's using a
low roof pitch. the the top height of the ridge is 34.2 ft. So even the top of the building is below the 35 ft height allowed by the zoning bylaw. Um number 12 on-site public improvements. We talked about that
easement and the walkway that's proposed. 13 are the off-site improvements that we've discussed at length. 14, improved flood control just as a result of elevating the building and restoring all these coastal dune features on site and offsite. Uh number
15, the compatible two family residential use. And the points we make there are if you were to compare the proposed two family use to um a sort of um reconstructed restaurant that meets the code which would have to then be
elevated and have walkways and ADA compliance and everything else. We think that this project uh would have less impact to the neighborhood than that project. Similarly, with respect to an as of right single family use, um we believe this project would also be
similar um or favorable to a single family use that's completely unregulated. A single family use if it's not regulated in the way that this project is is probably going to be higher because it could go 35 ft. The stepbacks are going to probably be less.
So they may keep the FAR down but expand the footprint of the building because they got room to do that with the building coverage and the setbacks that are allowed under the zoning. There would be no design control. Um and there would be no public improvements associated with the single family development.
Uh point 16 is just that we think we've come forward with a a a architectural design that's consistent with the beach style and character of the Pl Island community. Um we've number 17 we proposed the deed restrictions that we talked about previously.
Um and then the FAR considerations. I just want to pause for a second. So this is we know that the FAR has been like at the core of the the board's concerns. So give me one second and then we'll go through these.
Okay. The existing building singlestory is non-conforming with respect to FAR being 27.4% where 25 is the limit. The proposal calculated as it's supposed to be under the bylaw would bring the FAR number up
to 41.5%. And the board has had issue with that. um our previous proposal I think had numbers in excess of 50%. um far so as you're tr as you're evaluating the project in the context of the legal
standard, you know, is the project substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood or is the change in use less detrimental? As you're applying as you're cons evaluating the factors and trying to uh determine what finding is supported here, we
acknowledge that FAR is a relevant factor, but it shouldn't be applied independent of all the other factors and it shouldn't be viewed as a a determinative factor by itself, especially where this pro this property
is in a unique setting. far limits are basically aimed at controlling density, overcrowding, bulk sort of massing type issues and um and the goal being to preserve the visual character uh of a
neighborhood and to protect neighbors. Um these same impacts are also affected by other project attributes. um building height, setbacks, building coverage, and some of the other requirements we've talked about also affect these same um
these same types of impacts that FAR is aimed at controlling. We also wanted to highlight that our view that FAR should not be applied mechanically or just strictly on a numerical basis. And I'm not suggesting you're doing that. I mean obviously the
25% you're comparing what we're proposing to what the bylaw allows but we just wanted to emphasize that in considering far in this findings context it really we think should be a qualitative
spatial um analysis and take into all the other fact take all the other factors into account um not just put too much emphasis on the numeric the numerical standard or what's being proposed here. Um, there are buildings
that comply with FAR, in fact, buildings that comply very easily with FAR that present themselves on Plum Island with much more sort of bulk and massing than what this project would propose because every property is different, right? So,
it depends on where the building is located, what's the height, what are the setbacks, how close are you to the street. All these other factors come into play. Um, so in this case, we've got a unique setting and we tried to highlight that here so you'd have a chance to understand our perspective at
on this issue and have it in your record. But the site context here is unique. The properties at an intersection of two roadways. There are only two neighbors, direct neighbors to it. Um, the property is actually step back quite a ways from one of the one of
the roadways, Sunset Drive. Um the across Sun Sunset Drive there aren't a row of houses uh or any houses. It's expansive views to the west. So those are unique. It's a unique setting and these are factors that should be taken
into account when you're trying to evaluate the impacts of a non-conforming FAR. Um the the deed restrictions that we proposed we think affect and mitigate the FAR analysis. So of the far of the calculated FAR for these buildings, 960
square feet of that FAR calculation relates or comes from those open porches. We've proposed the deed restrictions to make sure that they won't ever be you won't have a future owner coming in here and looking to enclose those. The deed restriction will
prevent that. So these are open porches. Many municipalities don't even regulate spaces like this as far they you do in in in Newberry, but the reason some don't is because these open areas don't present themsel they don't present the
extent of massing and bulk issues that an enclosed space might. Excuse me. Maybe ask a question or that. But those open porches do are under roofs. Correct. They are. That's why they're counted in the calculation. Yes. And we don't dispute that. It's more Yes. We agree
that the number the far that's being proposed is 41.5%. We think that 960 square ft doesn't present the same types of impact issues as the enclosed living spaces do. So if
you were to dis discount those, the number would drop to 34.1%. And then going to the point that this property is situ situated with this large area between the the travel lane of Sunset Drive and the parcel itself and that we're proposing to improve
those. If you were to treat that as if it's part of the lot, which you're not supposed to do in terms of the numerical application, but if you were just putting it into context, that would actually bring the the visual impact of this building down to from a FAR perspective to 24.6%.
So, it's just to help with the sort of contextual evaluation. Um, again, we've proposed deed restrictions to protect the view corridors. Um, we've proposed significant improvements not only offsite, but even on the property. We situated the building um away from Plum
Island Boulevard, not just Sunset Drive, but we've shifted it to the south, away from Plum Island Boulevard, so we could propose significant vegetative coastal dune like improvements between the building and the public way on that side of the building. Um we've done
everything we can to reduce FAR to the extent that we can. the improvements that we've proposed, the quality of the building proposed, um it doesn't allow us to make further compromises in with respect to the living area. It's not it wouldn't be
financially feasible to do that and that's why we haven't come back to you with a further reduction in the size of the living spaces here. And then finally, we'll just point out that you know the neighbors that are most impacted and I don't uh know if they're here this evening, but you heard you
heard them in July. the neighbors most impacted that have been involved with this process were actually generally supportive of the project as it's been revised during this project. Um I want to just provide to you this is
not new information. It's just a sort of um compilation. I should point out that Nick Crackmail came in also. Um Nick put together a just a tabulated, you know, cheat sheet of the evaluation
factors that relate to the legal standard and the FAR considerations. I'd like to just give it to you, walk through it real quickly. It's nothing new, but it just packages this stuff into one document. I thought it would be be helpful to have in the record, if I may.
Thank you. Yeah. So basically as I mentioned this sort of tabulates a lot of the points that we discussed in more detail in that uh less detrimental and far considerations outline that we provided and it puts a lot of the numbers side by side existing
versus proposed. You saw something similar in the zoning table on Steve's site plan. This elaborates more fully all the factors that we think support the finding that we're asking for. We put in bold the FAR factor which is I think the only part of
this project that cuts against that finding but it's completely mitigated for all the reasons I've mentioned in the outline and tonight. And then we've summarized those at the bottom. You know, the kinds of impacts you're concerned with with respect to far exceeded
are mitigated by the lower building height, the low roof pitch, the greater setbacks than required, the open porches, the parcel being situated off of Sunset Drive and Pion Boulevard with significant improvements between those travel lanes and the buildings. Um, and
just the the amount of open space that's being restored as part of the project. Uh, so with that, I think I'll turn it over to the board unless Nick wanted to supplement anything there. Or do you want to just wait and see if they have questions? How you feeling? I don't know when you walked in. So,
I've been here for most of it, but maybe I'll wait and see if they Okay, so we'll turn it back to the board. Thank you. Great. Thank you. You guys questions? Um, just a couple things and I don't know if it's under our purview either.
Uh, the on-site public improvements. Yes. uh based on long-term maintenance, who's going to take care of it, uh money in escrow, uh you know, who says it looks bad, it's worn down, needs to be replaced, who's who's accountable for all that?
Um so the way we're we proposed this is that um the person building this, whether it's Mark or a buyer or whatever, is going to be responsible for constructing the improvements within the ride ofway and also within the easement on site. And at that point, the ongoing maintenance is the same as any other
public public rightway. And we've discussed this with James. So that will have to get nailed down in the agreement with the town. But as we're proposing it, it would be applicant constructs it, town maintains it. Okay. And the town will have the final
say on how that correct is right. Okay. That's right. We're we're we're understanding what is being proposed and offered as part of an improvement of the project. Um understanding how it relates
to all the characters that we typically do if it was part of the site is I think how we might consider it. But the town has the legal activity. It has to make the final agreement. Does that make sense? Yeah. Mhm.
My question was about maybe what that area is. I have a little bit, but I'd like to wait if I could. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Um, when you talked to the DPW, uh, was there any mention of crosswalks
or a bigger, um, did the discussion go more to the intersection and and Sunset Drive? And um, Steve, sorry with uh, no, there was no discussion about crosswalks. There's really no opportunity for us. There's
nothing. There's there's no crosswalk across the street. Typically that what happens is people park on the opposite side of Sunset Drive and they just cross there's there's no no real formal area to cross there. No sidewalk. They cross and we're just trying to provide a safe
passage around the corner to tie into um tie into the right. I don't believe there there's a there's ability to walk off the roadway as you proceed down uh towards the beach, but it was so we all know that people park over the
bridge where the old bridge was. People park in the muddy strip on the other side closest to us. They park across the street. So all that traffic, you're setting up a sidewalk. It would be nice if the town had a said don't cross here but cross here kind of thing. Uh, and
also I think then to get over to the Sunset Club, people walk on both sides of the road and then all of a sudden they find themselves at the intersection and figure they got to go do something. So in terms of public safety, I think it might just ask James to consider how the bigger picture might be.
Eric, if you'll recall at the end of the uh board of selectments meeting, uh Tracy Blae uh said to me that what we're doing is uh very similar to what the Marramac Valley Planning Commission uh under a grant funding proposed to the
town to do there for the safety reasons you're outlining, right? And that is effectively a crosswalk from the marsh on Sunset Boulevard way before you get into the intersection. That's why our walkway and the carrying the easement starts way back there. Then
when you come around that corner with baby carriages and umbrellas, you're well off the road. And then when you get to the other side of my property going towards the east, uh I think there currently may be a crosswalk there now. But it would be the crosswalk would be
uh uh somewhere around the very end of our property over there as far away from the intersection as possible. And what Tracy had remarked is that this might allow them to uh go back to that grant. And that was when we had our dispute
over my parking that was put on hold. Uh and this would then allow them to go back to that. I have no idea whether that's going to happen, but that's what Tracy was telegraphing. I I think maybe what I'm saying and probably should have said first is that I would just I think
I will talk to DPW and James because I'd like to see the town do their piece to help help help the situation with the corner being improved. Uh it would be a shame for the town not to take the extra step to make sure everybody's safe.
Yeah, for sure. Okay, so that was one. Um, two, I would say by the time you get done, but you might want little nice little gates that say private property at the two edges of your two to the the condo to make sure people aren't like
wandering around the back side. Yep. Of that. Um, and is it proposed to have a granite curb around the edge or is it No granite curving? No granite curving. So they'd be a vegetated strip between the edge of um
so the plan is to have a white uh edge of road edge of white solid white line for the edge of travel way and then a two foot offset to the edge of pavement and then a vegetated strip. So no no curving. Okay. That that facilitates drainage. the
sheet flow can drain into the sand into grass. Or just um again thinking of people seeing where the the crosswalk is or where they could step up onto and if there's a curb and it's planted then we hope that people
would think that they're not trampling it down to make their own path. Right. Um, okay. So, this project seemed to lend itself to checklists. I know you guys did one with one here. Yeah.
You have an itemized list. I did one, too. I think most people, most of us probably did. First, I would say it's significant that um both of the neighbors who, as you said, were here a lot. Um, I wouldn't say they enthusiastically supported it. Who wants a duplex next to it? But they said they
both very clear they preferred it to a restaurant. Um, so there's a mitigating factor on the checklist that I looked at, which is very similar to the one that that you listed. Uh, better or worse or even traffic patterns are better, noise, odor, and nuisance were
better. The impact on uh property values probably better. Public health and safety better. environmental impact, water, flooding, erosion, uh, better infrastructure, sewer, etc. Better the
three items that I thought were worse, and I don't think it's a deal breaker, we're clearly far. I think we've all acknowledged that. Um, and then the two visual or aesthetic ones, the visual impact with the with the view, you know, I appreciate that you're trying to save the BU corridors, but there's a big
difference between a 12t high cape looking structure and a 34 foot high Uh so that so so that's a hard one to win on. The other one uh is very similar uh but but under the powers test they call it more aesthetic visual appeal. I
know we're not completely going by powers and in that case that one's you know I don't know if it fits my vision of a of a beach house but my vision doesn't really count. So uh our our selective vision as provided to us in
the bylaws doesn't really count. Right. So, so with that said, I would say we kindly suggest sometimes or we we make certain faces at certain things, but what we cannot be criticized for the design character
of Plum Island. We, you know, the spatial and the massing as we've discussed, we can be for sure. But um that's just something to say on the record because you know other towns if you were in Kentucky had a different discussion definitely.
So so that's about it for me. I think we're tending towards a positive outcome here. Okay. Um any last questions? Is there anyone in the audience here that would like to speak in favor or opposed?
You can speak for your own project if you really like. If you're here, if you're here and you're new, take it for granted that I'm in favor. Last chance to get on the record. Okay. Do you have any is there any words of
wisdom from uh Lisa or? Um so uh so no, Lisa sort of left it to me. Um I reviewed all the paperwork that Jeff submitted, all of which he walked through tonight. Um, I don't have anything in particular to say that would contradict the representations he's made. I thought the legal memorandum was
nicely done. Um, I did review the proposed conditions that Jeff provided. I thought that those were appropriate. Um, I might suggest some minor tweaks in the wording just based on past experience representing boards specifically um to uh ensure that those conditions are enforceable to ensure
that um they reflect the reality that they are offerings by the applicant that might typically be beyond your purview if you were to make demands for these sorts of things like due quarters or deed restrictions. um those are not typically things that ZBAS or planning boards can do uh as a matter of zoning
law, but when they're offered by an applicant and you rely upon those voluntary representations, uh it's fair to include them as conditions of approval if the condition reflects the fact that they were voluntary concessions or commitments made by the applicant. So, I typically like to include language to that effect within
the wording of the condition because often when somebody's reading a decision 5 years from now, 10 years from now, they don't have the benefit of the full record or transcript or the meeting minutes in front of them. Um, but otherwise, I thought the special conditions were nicely done. Um, my only suggestion as you proceed in whatever
direction you might be proceeding tonight is to do this in two steps. And maybe this is consistent with your past practice or how Lisa's counseledled you in the past. I never advise a board, especially in a project of this importance, uh, to simply vote to approve or approve with conditions, try
to fashion those conditions verbally on the spot, um, and then assume that the decision is going to re read the way that you want it to read. So, usually what we advise our boards to do is when you feel that you're at a point where you're ready to close the public hearing, uh, go ahead and close the public hearing. Um, decide what you
think those conditions of approval might be, if it'll be an approval or the basis for denial, if it's going to be a denial. flush those out. Uh advise me what those conditions might be or what those grounds might be. I can take notes. You can take notes. And then ultimately what I think you should vote
upon in the first instance would be to instruct council or or to instruct the chair subject to review by council to draft an approval approval with conditions to deny whatever it's going to be for your review at your next meeting. Uh and then ultimately when you
do finally vote to grant the approval or to deny the project, you'll be doing so with a a full uh and complete decision before you um that'll be fleshed out and and ready for prime time and then can file it literally the next day. So we have been taking steps to improve
ourselves every time and certainly our decisions are are are um have greatly improved with Chrissy here at the helm. Uh, and Lisa has counseledled us on that before and certainly since um
um since the 40B project, I think is when we actually asked town council to draft the first decision for us and have taken advantage of that several times since. Um, so it appreciate you you
clearly outlining all that again for us. Sure. That's good. So in all the other departments have um procedures and standards whether it's planning board whether it's um whether
it's concom uh DPW obviously they've had an open relation and discussion and the select board in terms of what they will need to do. Is there a precedent for that in town? Is this how do we if
if this a key piece of this moving forward is predicated on the corner and the assumption that that's all in favor and doable and can come to some terms and agreement and be bound back in to make sure that it happens.
Sure. So as as we uh debate or understand it or see the merits of that, how does it actually legally get done and do you know that process or or or does it get done? Right. So um
it's it's a fair question. I'm glad that you asked it because I was as I was reading through it, I mentioned some potential tweaks in the wording. When I was reading through proposed special condition one, which is the one that speaks to the on and off-site improvements, um I've drafted conditions like this many many times for boards
before, often in the chapter 40B context where commitments will be made to uh realign an intersection or to install a traffic light or things along those those lines that are off-site improvements. Um they obviously require approval from different uh departments, boards, commissions, committees, most
often from the select board just to grant the license to do work within the public right of way to say nothing of you know mass dot approvals or whatnot that are sometimes required with those more comprehensive uh um mitigation conditions. Um
what the the challenge that faces boards like yours, ZVA's planning boards is you can only take action on what's within your perview. So you can't grant the permission to access the right of way. That permission comes from the select board. Uh you can't grant permission to do work uh works public works that are
within the purview of your department of public works. And so you can condition it the way that Jeff has suggested here. I think it's well worded where um there is a statement that the applicant has proposed improvements. It goes on to describe what those improvements are.
And then there was language here to some effect, and I'm looking for it, that indicated that it was going to be prior to implementation of public improvements, the applicant property owner and their successors and assigns shall secure all necessary required approvals for such work. And then it says in parenthesis, eg conservation
commission order of conditions, street opening permit, board of selectment approval. So that's fine. But then the question becomes, but what happens if those things don't issue? What if the select board doesn't issue its approval? Now, we don't think that's going to happen. We think the select board will be in favor of improvements at the applicant's cost within the public
rideway. But what if the what if that doesn't happen? What if the conservation commission looks at the project and says the the select board has said it'll only approve it if the sidewalk is vuminous asphalt and yet we're not comfortable with that impervious surface. We're going to demand that it be uh the the
wooden planks that we're working with composed. Now, you have a stalemate between the two boards. And so, what happens? And particularly what happens when you're basing your decision arguably on this mitigation being part of the basis for you reaching the conclusion that this project will not be
substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conformive use. If this is if this is of that that much importance to you that this is a basis for the decision, how do you assure yourself that that gets done? And so I think the one potential tweak you could make to this condition, I like the the concept
of in the event that the project gets modified by the project, I mean the project improvements within the right of way, the off-site improvements to the extent that those get changed in such a way that that they're they're material changes. Jeff has proposed that um if they're minor, they can be administratively approved. If they're
more significant, they would come back to you. Well, maybe what we also incorporate is in the event that the permits and approvals that are required to be obtained from the select board or DPW or whomever conservation commission can't be obtained. Well, then in that instance, the applicant also has to come back to you to discuss an alternative
mitigation plan because otherwise they're going to say, "We're stuck between a rock and a hard place. We understand your condition said we have to do this, but we're being told by the selectman. We're being told by the conservation commission that we can't do it. So, what are we supposed to do? We can't we can't proceed if your other municipal boards, commissions,
committees, departments are not giving us the go in. Yeah, I I would think from the conversations that you've all reported that most people understand what's going on here. The question is that we always
like to make sure that if it's someone else's um governance that we just clearly say that, right? And and we're not trying to elude in a decision uh typically in a favorable decision that we're granting anything more than what
exactly is in the the bylaw for zoning. Right. So, and I guess with that, we're we're always and I guess we haven't really haven't really had it where we've had decisions that have gone we've had some decisions that never
the applicant never took action on, but we've never had a decision that got really screwed up and sort of halfway there and then all of a sudden there was bigger issues of stuff that's outside everybody's context that we just hopefully don't want to get to. So, if we set it up correctly and everybody has the right understanding, then everything
should go smoothly because the the language is in place to make sure everybody's aware of what needs to happen. I I do tend to see fewer hiccups when it's all within municipal government. When you're talking about the select board has to give the okay or the conservation commission has to give the
okay. Often I'm crafting these conditions as I alluded to before where it's the Massachusetts Department of Transportation has to issue some sort of a highway access highway access permit and what happens if that if that doesn't issue that's beyond your control. Fortunately, we have to deal with any of that.
No, I deal every day, right? The MBTA and Masot all at the same time. So, we don't want to go there. Okay. So, We've got a lot of bases covered. There's still some some items that need
to get written or clarified. There's a fair amount of documentation in front of us that provides an understanding more so than the typical application. Um, so with that, I guess I would ask for a
motion for a decision. Do we need to close the public hearing first? No, I think we're gonna Well, I So, we're at the point, yes, we will close the public hearing because we're not expecting any new information. And at this point with the discussion,
we're not going to ask for any new information, I guess, is what I should ask you guys. First, we um ask for legal to help us with the final. Let's make the motion to to do just that.
Okay. Uh I I'll make a motion to uh to draft to draft a decision to grant the approval for the property located at Talm Island uh based on the proposed special considerations that have been submitted and withheld from our legal team. Okay. Is there a second?
Second. Is there any debate or discussion? So I would add to that that we will ask you to draft a favorable decision that includes the specifically the um
the less determination considerations that were drafted and provided to us. Uh you can include the comparison evaluations with that. Um the
legal um standard I think does not need to be included in the decision but it can be noted as it was provided. Um but I think the the basis of what we're providing is less detrimental should be in there either attached or why we're I
guess is what I'm saying. Okay. Um is there any other items of understanding that you'd like to get to? No. So with that, we have a motion to draft a favorable decision by town council for this project.
Okay. All those in favor? I I passes. Thank you. Thank you very much. So, Mr. Chair, I have I have two questions. Yep. Uh first is you didn't close the public hearing. So that's fine. You can close it now. You could also, and some boards
choose to do this, keep the public hearing open, which would allow you to engage with the applicant and uh elicit or solicit additional information should you need it as you're working through a decision. So, that's up to you. We've, as things have happened in the past,
things never seem to be over until they're over. And so, we've we have traditionally kept the public hearing over open until the last minute of the decision. Um, I think in this case, for the number of times you've been before us and the
number of of documentation that you have provided, I don't feel the need that you're going to change anything. Um, because we probably wouldn't find that favorable. But, um, is there any issue of closing the public hearing? We don't have any other questions. We're not expecting any other
vaccination. Okay. So, we will close the public hearing at this time. And so as you proceed to a motion on that and before you proceed to a motion, this is my second point. Um I would suggest if you're going to do that that you get authorization. Do you meet bi-weekly or monthly?
Monthly and then by special occasion. Okay. So um if you're not meeting within the next 14 days, I would suggest if you're closing the hearing that you just get authorization. It's not a special permit. the finding, but just get express authorization from the applicant to uh extend any applicable deadline
beyond your next meeting to give you an opportunity to review and act on your decision at the next meeting. Can I just get clarity on what the vote was for here? I'm afraid to even ask because it sounded pretty good.
Is is the vote a I vote to approve this subject to us finalizing the decision to our satisfaction. We have asked for a favorable motion and draft it. We haven't taken the final vote. Okay. But
we're not we just want to review the draft and look at everything and make sure the language is appropriate and then vote on that as the the document that we're voting on. I think that's totally reasonable. I think it makes sense. I think it's good legal advice. Um I'm thinking of what I'm going to tell the conservation
commission. So, I'm going to tell them that you you asked for a favorable decision to be drafted by council. All indications are that if that draft comes out covering all the issues that we discussed today, that we're expecting
the vote will be consistent with that and we're going to end up the commission needs to be set comfortable that we're not continuing to tweak things and that they're not voting on a project that's not happening anyways. You know what I'm Yeah. We can report as long as you don't
change anything that nothing is going to change on our side because we have the document well presented documentation. Thank you by you for this. Okay. I think that sounds good. Okay. So, can we have your consent that
we're going to extend past 14 days as soon as the draft is ready? Then I guess I would appreciate getting a copy to to preview. Um if if we then send it back to you when we finalize it, it will be distributed to the other members before
the meeting so that they can read it and be prepared at the meeting to to discuss it. Yes. So we we can certainly prepare a draft in advance, have it circulated. Only thing we can't do is we can't solicit feedback from individual members, make changes, and then send it
back to you outside of an open meeting. Um, but we can if if you do get changes back to us and you want those changes made, you can post it. Um, do you have any objection to sharing that decision, that draft decision with the applicant? Um, I typically recommend it in the event that we're missing something or something's misstated. Better to have it
caught before it gets finalized. Um, so we would send it to the board. We would sim simultaneously send it to Jeff for review. Um, and we'll plan to do that uh usually at least a week before um whatever your next meeting might be. May maybe much maybe even further in advance than that. I just um I'm not sure what
the meeting date is. October 16th. Plenty of time. Good. Um, and I'm sorry. Are you are you planning to move to Are you going to vote on closing the hearing tonight? I just want to be clear about the extension that you're then asking for by
Yeah, we're going to vote to close the hearing. Okay. Is there a motion be had? Motion to close the hearing. Second hearing. All in favor? I I Okay. Thank you. So, are you asking for an extension of the time to finalize the
decision? Is that the request? Right. I mean, I I'm suggesting it out of out of an abundance of caution because they they haven't voted. So, technically, we're not on a clock until they until they vote to actually draft that decision and file it within 14 days with the town clerk's office, but they did take a vote to authorize the
preparing of the decision. So, I just don't want to find ourselves in a situation where not that you would claim constructive approval as you're about to get your your approval with conditions, but just just want to be safe. Yeah. I mean, the applicant consents to the extension of time. So, the duration between now and October 16th could be
added to whatever time you would otherwise have. And I can send an email to Chrissy and maybe I'll work on the language with me just so that we're on the same page. Um, and we'll confirm that extension in writing for the record. Great. Thank you. Appreciate it.
Thank you very much. Thank you. So a normal decision council for their review. Thank you. Thank you. Good work. Yep. [Music]
Okay. Uh other general business 2-8 Old Point Road, Sunset Club. Discussion on minor changes, modification to ZBA previously approved pavilion structure site plan submitted to the planning board. Uh next meeting hearing date is Thursday, October. So that's it.
All righty. All right. Uh Steve Sy from Millennium here on behalf of Cottage um Sunset. Yeah, Sunset. Vincent Gooden is wasn't available to make it tonight. So I'm popped in to help out. Let's be clear. You're right across the street. Is that correct? Yeah.
Want to get in the neighborhood? Yeah. In the neighborhood. So I don't So the question is whether it's actually changed. Joe, my understanding that I didn't review I don't know if anyone took a chance to review the deliberations from I don't know a year back December 21st of 2023
just to refresh your memory. Um but so originally the thought was the building was going to turn 90° when he came in and as part of that deliberation um it was discussed about rotating at 90° and
then uh as part of that the deliberation Vincent had mentioned about to protect it protect the sun from shining in that this gable end of the roof would be enclosed and it seemed like there was extensive deliberation and the and that the board was understanding
that this portion of the gable ends were going to be enclosed as part of that rotating 90°. The only thing is I think it was on item six of the decision it says that the the sides should remain open u at all times and I guess if you
know splitting hairs this is actually part of the roof. It's this little triangular piece is in definition is the gable the gable end of the roof. Um, so it's really not a wall, but there was just a consideration from the planning
board, they said, "Okay, was the zoning board understanding that these ends were to be enclosed?" Yeah. I I think after reviewing the tape, um, it was still under discussion that we would like to see a render render a picture of it. You know, if you
go back and it's like we would like to see what it would look like. Mhm. So, so there are um these Photoshop renderings have been provided to the planning board uh as part of the the pavilion structure
uh and I I I believe that they were uh happy with the renderings as provided. Uh but they you know they want a clarification. Okay. is part of that ZBA decision. Um, is the gable end part of that
decision? And if it if not, it needs to be for them to act on it. And and then was there number two that there were some slightly different site containers or I don't he didn't change now the the
site portion as far as the uh on the site. I believe all those items were part of the ZBA fun. Um, so it was the they had added the uh merch shack and then also the storage
containers here. I think that was I believe that was in the original uh zoning board site plan those additional um mobile structures or mobile trailers. So I think the only item I believe the
only item was the gate on the building that differed from the plan that was presented as the DVA. Not having the original plan in front of us. Anybody have it? No.
[Music] too long. That's I I thought that was one of the items, but I do recall talking about rotating it so that that there was more of a structure to see and that again as
a gateway intersection that you had something recognizable with a face. I think I even said something beyond my bounds by saying that maybe there'd be a good place to put a sign, but um it didn't. Yeah, they didn't. So I'm not so
I'm not going to say it again. Yeah. But um so that was part of the discussion. Yeah. What is that material that's in the that's filling the gable? That would be like a barn board. Uh some sort of wood wood material is the gable in the g and the and the truss would be
on the outside. So you'd see the truss structure on the outside and then detail the bar. Yes. To give it some detail in the end and then the barn board would be backing it. And so one is for sun protection and two um
where's the where's your lighting on site? Uh so as far as part of the the structure I think there is some down lighting inside underneath the uh down lighting hung from the rafters. Uh we did provide I think a as part of the submission there was an updated lighting
plan. Then also there's some up lighting that's tucked in that shines up on the roof u underneath. And then as far as the sight lighting, it's just as just lighted ballards throughout, you know, small 2 and 1/2 3ft highlighted ballards throughout the
property. And we had asked for a shadow study. Remember that the pavilion wasn't going to cast shadows on neighbor as being a second larger structure. Thank you, Chrissy. Yeah. And uh one other thing too we discussed was the select board were they
aware of the new situation um based on the licensing for the liquor license based on this new structure. You guys said you were going to um revisit the site plan um with the selectment just to make sure that the license was okay with
the new building. I know we're well right now we're currently before the planning board for site plan review. Uh, I can't speak. I'm not sure if Vincent's been gone back to the slight just to make sure it was everything was they kind of okay with building their liquor license.
I know as far as the occupation of the license, there's no additional um seating seating as part of this. It's just to provide cover during extremely hot weather or inclement weather rain. You have to go before the select board once a year to get your license, your
particular license updated, right? I believe so. I have to defer to this was March of 2024. Uh I think they do that in the pre Yeah. November.
Is that what it is that when it's done? So if if we approved this in March of 24, they would have brought this before the select board or had the opportunity to have this before the select board in
November if the select board then asked about what they were doing with their license. So maybe I I have no direct knowledge. What I know is that once you have obtained a liquor license, you're entitled to renewals as a matter of course, so long as you submit renewal application in the month of November for the ensuing calendar year. If you're
making no changes, it's virtually a rubber stamp by the select board. If you're making modifications, you have to and you have to modify the license premises as they're defined, then you would need to complete a license premises modification form and file it with BBCC.
So, as as part of this, this had lights to, you know, to provide some light under and enclosing the gable would not allow that light to spill out or or be seen and would keep the lighting really low and on the ground. And so enclosing
the gable, I'm not 100% sure what he said, but I would find it more favorable in terms of the lighting to enclose the gable and and have the light be on the ground and not not be bright appear inside the rafters as you're driving to see it.
I understand your point about the light, but I was surprised to see the renderings with the enclosed gable because that's not what I was expecting, nor what we saw during any of the other. Yeah. Yeah. the structure there. It wasn't sight specific, but it was a
from the building company and even now still the the technical drawings are still not showing it enclosed. And so to me to see the renderings I was surprised um and and I think quite frankly
aesthetically and massing um and how it is viewed from the neighborhood is quite different in my opinion. Um, you're no longer seeing through the structure now. Um, so just uh I don't know if you'd actually see
through it anyway. If this was open driving down, you'd probably looking at the underside of the back of the Well, I mean, I think you can see from the lower right hand what it would look like if you're if you're heading off the islands, you're seeing through to the marsh. You're seeing through to the sunset, which is the sunset club's whole
concept is to see, you know, through. So, so to me I was surprised to see this enclosed. I wasn't expecting it that I my opinion is it it is quite different. Um open to other people's opinions and yeah
again I mean the these technical drawings are even the most recent ones are still not showing any post. Um so the submission is sort of not exactly accurate either. you know, we're seeing one thing on the renderings with something else on the drawings.
Um, yeah, unfortunately, I think the timber company, they it's not a typical situation and that that's, you know, the I guess the prefab timber that comes doesn't have that backing on it. That's something you'd add in the field to it.
Um, after the timber timber frame structure built. Yeah. Did did I miss why you wanted to do that? Did you say why? Well, I I believe so during that I know during I did watch the deliberation. There was a fair amount of actually
extensive discussion about that. And I think you know number one the Zay did not okay you're driving on. We don't want to be looking at a shed roof or the the the the not the vehicle the shed portion of the roof. Um so that when it
was turned I I did you know Vincent did say well as part of the you know as part of this we do need to you know we we do need to shade we need to provide shade because what's going to happen have the afternoon sun beating in there and there
was a fair amount of discussion about okay with that we're talking about we need we'd want to close in that gable line and it went on for quite a while and I guess is was there And I think that's where we were talking about we'd like to see a rendering Yeah. of it. That was a cover from Mount
Martha. Okay. So the the prevailing wind and weather is from the west and the intent of the pavilion is also to provide rain coverage. So it does
provide some additional coverage at the open gable deck. It's 10 ft with the height of a basketball rim to that plane of a roof that's open on the sides. So that's a
you know it's a person that's me and a half studio. Yeah. No, I understand. I I I just you know we've spent so much time on the site across the street. I see that. Um, but I I want to make sure we're paying
attention to this side of the street as well. And um, the renderings are a little jarring in my This is my opinion. Yeah. Um, want to see a rendering, but I do think for the neighborhood in what we review for zoning, there actually was. So they they he did have one done t the typical rendering
that Rob Lyanna does but which uh the planning board they wanted something more I guess more you know I guess a photoshop rendering just to see what's actually going to be but this you know actually looking at this
so you have you know you can see the the hip roof building there in these buildings and the sign and in the peak and the gate to this this is actually I actually impressed how close it was, how, you know, how close they were
together. Um, so that we did have this rendering done. Um, it kind of brings out um, you know, everything's much more bold than the photograph. Unfortunately, this photograph is a little grainy. It's a probably meant to be blown up.
We can use our imaginations to, you know, and I guess one thing is when you're driving in Yeah. when when you're driving in, you can barely, you know, when you as you're coming down. I think I I think it's true to see a comparison without that building. I think it's I think it's a big
difference. I think um this is a solid building now that we're seeing in this rendering and I think what we were proposing was a open pavilion. So, in my opinion, it is different for the neighborhood. It is blocking views. It
does appear more of a mass than it did before. Um, but again, you know, I'm open to what other people obviously have to say, but I do think that turning it so that as you again the gateway as you
drive onto Plum Island, you're looking at less of a a mass. You're not just looking at Absolutely agree with that, which I think is, you know, right a good a good change. It's it's total
Where's the total height? The total height um is 22 feet 2 in to the ridge. So 22 feet 2 in compared to 34 ft to the
new project that's right next door. Um, is Eric, are you reading that from the ZBA's decision or from I'm reading it from these technical drawings that are here? Okay. Steve, is that the correct type?
That is correct. Yeah. I think uh if I might switch just I think the planned words uh question you know in this asking applicant to come to the DI was to make sure that
your decision was not inconsistent with what's being proposed with the plan board right now. So I think that's that uh itch those uh appendices or addendums
that show the open gable was the primary concern that might be a modification that the applicant's requesting. Um yes and so where it doesn't want to approve something that's inconsistent with your approval
and we appreciate that. Um and so one of the things before us is that in our decisions we had stated that changes needed to come back before us. And then in not for this decision but recently we also added the sentence that the minor
changes can be approved at at a at a meeting. And if we felt that they were major changes, then we would ask or or state that the applicant needed to go back and readvertise and reopen the project because the changes were so great. So one of the things to decide is
whether it's minimum or major in terms of the change and then secondly to act from there. Um I think there was some discussion previously about it whether we actually
didn't quite follow up and or the applicant didn't quite come back and so now we're at this point because it was assumed and written up to be open and then it we had discussed or mentioned it being closed. I don't find it that
detrimental to be closed. I understand about it being open and and more light going through it, but it is I mean the purpose of it is to provide weather protection in terms of its its use or
its intended use to to do what it's supposed to do. Um, I'm just happy that it's turned sideways in that it seems better presentation as you drive on with a with a new building here and a somewhat matching building here as best we could do without
actually having design considerations for this very important location on and and I know we're not it's not really in our purview to talk about aesthetics, but it is in our purview to talk about
something being detrimental to the neighborhood which by that default includes visually what you're looking at too I think um and it's not just that I think it's the massing too I mean already the structure I think was going
to look a bit out of place um as it was with the gables open you know it's a it's a bit more aderond campsite versus Palm Island Beach I think but you know I think we were we were sort of there
right with the open raptors and that's what was presented previously the open raptors was presented we never saw anything that showed these show the gabled dance clothes so so you know fully understanding
aesthetics it's not in our specifically I guess you know in terms of color and things like that but in terms of mass passing in terms of views that I think is in our point of view. Well, we we the ground plane isn't changing. The sides cannot for our
decision cannot be enclosed or even even draped so that it it kind of sort of morphs into something else that it wasn't supposed to be. Um so really it's still going to function exactly the same in terms of use. Now, yeah, it is
aesthetics and we did we did look at um somewhere we did look at the shadow studies so that it it wasn't in terms of the day casting shadows
or great shadows um off the property. It's casting shadows into the parking lot and no more. And so in that way it's not detrimental to a neighbor who is next to the parking lot and that they would all of a sudden find this this
bulk there. Um I mean there's other proposed options. Maybe it's a translucent panel, but I wonder you're not getting direct sun, you're not getting rain, but it's yet you're you're seeing sky through it and you're
seeing um let me ask if it might not be more simple uh that that we've already decided that I think that the way the applicant presented it was best. He said the question is is the gable end part of a side? If it's part of the side and we
already decided decided side that they got to be open. Mr. the chairman just quoted that all the sides have to be open. If it's not part of the side and it's part of the roof, then that's a different story. Um, but if he's enclosing one of the sides, then we got to somehow reopen it and redo our
decision. If it's if it's part of the roof, then that's a different question. So maybe that's a way to look at it to resolve it. And I I believe the the definition of this triangular piece is the gable end gable end of the roof. is I think if you
look in the definition at my house there's a bedroom in there. It's a tape and that's the side of my house. Yeah, I think we're up to when is a wall when is a wall. I I was more what was presented was it was open like what no matter what we talked about
the the documentation that backs up the submitt uh and the application it it was open and like I said still right now it's partially presented as open to and and I understand these shop drawings are coming from the manufacturer right who's
going to fabricate it and deliver it so so I get it but yet we're still getting two different stories from the application and so maybe a rendering without the like I said what I mean what are other people thinking I I mean I kind of agreeing with you
like I'd like to see it without it and see what it looked like because the original what we looked at in the original meeting was no no gable yeah but you could see the trusses like you could see the trusses that's the
original drawing I I guess so we haven't answered the sort of what they're here for, whether it's a minor or major change. So I I don't know what how we supposed to move forward with getting more information in this case if if that's what people want
to ask for. Um, that's a good question. Since it's the first time through it, maybe there's a a little bit of a a gray area. I know that we had asked Larry at one point uh an opinion of site plan sort of
modifications in terms of what people do in the process of of how things come before the planning board of how things progress and what might be major or sort of a minor adjustment that was asked for. Um, we typically
should have as things get recorded on deeds and and we're trying to uh in our decisions grant something and that something should be exact and not iffy. And we certainly don't like when
people come before us and sort of fish for something and try to feel us out and think they're going to get approval and then they're going to go figure it out and change everything. And then that's not what we had our debate um discussion on. And so the language is in there to try to make sure we can figure things
out, but we can also be accommodating the residents in terms of minor changes and not run them through a whole another procedure if we don't really have to. Um, and be fair about it and be consistent about it is what we need to do. So, um,
might be a minor change, but we should think about what it would look like without because that's what we saw in the original plan. Well, and based on some of the original um, conversation too is I don't know if
we totally understand the site plan and what's what's being proposed as temporary versus permanent or which I don't think we're worried about it. I just think documentation wise we need to have a plan that shows this is what's included
in our square footage that from from the video they were that was determined that they were all removable because if they weren't removable they had to go on pilings to get out of the flood zone. So they were deemed to be removable the whole structure
those other structures. Oh the these other structures yeah that's what she was talking about. Oh, okay. That Yeah, basically that's the whole basis that the mobile kitchen and the the existing the existing enclosed restaurant was just a renovation to the existing garage. That's the only basis
for that being allowed to be upgraded there. Yeah. I mean, yeah, they're not moving. They're full of kitchens working in there and store, you know, refrigerators and um but there's but but that's how it's class. I'm not
trying to change that. What are they hooked up to? They like propane and electric. Is that there's no plumbing to the It's a full working. It's But yeah, but it is it's a um technicality of definition. Yeah. Yeah. And like I said, that's fine. I think it would just be helpful to have a
plan just just like this documentation. You know, we always try to have the documentation that matches what the presentation is and what we're approving. And I think it would just be helpful to understand that. Let's take one step at a time here. Yeah. but could propose that this is
this could be a a considered a minor change that we can discuss and debate and and vote on without having to reopen the public. Does that sound fair? It's not changing in size, shape or location. It's been presented before. It's been
presented to the um planning board. Uh it's it's not a different use and so there's no debate on that. Yep. Yes. Correct. I think we all agreed on it. So, we'll agree that this is a minor, but it sounds like there's another step
in order in order to figure out where we're going with it. So, one is that we have a current site plan that has been updated and is before the planning board and that we would ex and um Kristen and Larry, do we know if
there's any changes from the planning board that are being suggested or proposed from the submission Steve gave you most recently? Yes. I don't believe so. Okay. I don't know how if it may differ in other ways from your decision.
So, I don't I don't think that the containers on site that we're going to propose moving them or even have a discussion about their location. So, the only thing really before us tonight is whether the gable end is closed or not.
And and that's what we what we need to make a decision or clarification on. If that site plan matches the site plan that was used in your original decision, then there's no change. But if there are changes, if there are changes,
we just update the reference to site plan as Yes. And so that was Michelle did say that and I think to clarify what I think you were saying is that we would like the site plan. We would like the right rendering. We would ask if if this is
being presented as the technical structure that we note that this is this is a typical submitt that doesn't 100% reflect the actual pavilion to be built because the sides will be enclosed and we need a note on it so that our
Yeah, I thought thought I had noted that on I'm just I'm just saying uh no gave to be closed. What we're after is in order to make our revision to a to to accept the revisions
via minimal Mhm. declaring it a minimal revision. We would like just to make sure that the documentation of the application is complete and when we don't have a 100 different things and we're not relating back to something old and we have the
old but we'd like to make a new decision so that it it's just update. So an updated site plan uh clarification on the as far as the shop drawing is so I'll probably we could come up with or detail what okay what
materials backing it my understanding is fine okay what type of a chip lab or whatever I'll I'll get that from from Vincent and I think the rendering the rendering shows the gables and the and shows the trusses and the and one rendering shows
the gable then there's that's all that's before us to make the decision. That's unclear. So to be clear, you're asking for a rendering with the cable ends closed. We have that. We have that. We're going by that, not not one on on the technical I see it. Yes.
Right. So now they just have to take that and maybe erase the the cream color and show the the trust beyond. And now we have open and closed. Yep. Okay. Then we can make a decision. Okay. So you'd like a separate set of renderings with the ends open. Yes. And then everybody knows for the
record what we made our minimal decision on. Okay. And we can go forward. All right. Does that make sense? Makes sense. Motion. Sure. Make a motion. Uh I make a motion to continue the meeting till October 16th 7:30 town hall
uh with the addition of new renderings and new site plans. Excellent. Second. Yep. All in favor? All right. Thank you. All right. Thanks for walking us walk through that. You want to take that back?
[Music] Does that matter? As long as it's like I don't even remember who voted on the original. I remember the discussion. I remember you weren't here. You were not here. Michelle's on that one. Got a problem. Yeah.
[Applause] Can watch the video. Well, we're all here now. This is a change. I'll ask if I have to watch the video. Let everyone know one time I wasn't good. But I like the ones that I'm in better than the ones I'm not in. Just don't
It's not that long to be honest with you because it's like it's the last part of the meeting. What was the date on it? It's in the email. Oh, here it is. Here. Take this. What was it originally? A special permit? Yeah. Yes. That was the email.
Can you see the bottom? The hyper March 2024. Oh, yeah. We have the email. Yeah, it's on the email. You just go back to your email. Oh, I have this. Okay. Yeah, that's easy. What do we do?
Is there any other business on agenda for us. [Music] So we're on the third Thursday. Sure is. Okay. All right. Make a motion to close meetings. Yes. Second. Second. All in favor? I. Meetings
closed. Thank you.